lördag 28 januari 2012

The team at Holocaust Controversies deserves credit for having taken the time to point out numerous falsehoods in the books about Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec published by Graf, Mattogno and Kues.

According to Dr. Töben we can expect a "devastating" refutation from these three gentlemen. Devastating? Probably so - but for WHOM?

Some years ago, in 2007, Mr. Graf and a certain Bruno Montoriol published a small book: Holocaust Revisionism - The Arguments. While not intended to be so, it is actually a funny book. Here are a few examples chosen more or less at random:

1.) There were no gas vans, for there is no physical evidence of any gas vans, and there are no reliable documents. Well, there is one document, Becker to Rauff (p. 176), but this letter "is a primitive forgery", says Graf (p. 176).

Otto Ohlendorf

Really? - Otto Ohlendorf was interrogated in Nuremberg on January 3, 1946. Asked for his opinion about this document, Ohlendorf identified Becker and Rauff, and stated that the contents was in accordance with his own experience with regard to the gas vans, that had also been used by his men in Einsatzgruppe D: "Der Inhalt entspricht etwa meine Erfahrungen und wird daher auch wahrscheinlich richtig sein." (The contents corresponds to my own experience, and is thus probably also true). (Der Nürnberger Prozess, Bd. IV, Nürnberg 1947 p. 358).

It is not seen that Ohlendorf had any reasn to lie about the gas vans, about which he provides several details from his own experience. The fact that there is no physical evidence of a given past event or thing available to us NOW, does, of course, not allow one to infer that that event or thing never existed. What has become of all the flowers in the world of the past, of which there is no longere any physical evidence! Did they never exist?

2.) To support his claim that there were no gas vans, Graf calls upon a "reliable witness" - Dr. Josef Goebbels (p. 178). The little doctor once told Hans Fritzsche that gas vans "were a pure figment of the imagination". But can we really rely on the veracity of the little doctor? Not always, according to Graf´s own words, for on p. 105 we are told that Goebbels, when writing his March 27 1942 diary "may have brought fantasies to paper". Or perhaps these were not fantasies at all? Are we to rely on Goebbels - or on Graf?

3.) When it comes to Auschwitz, Graf asserts that there is not "a single proof for the gassing of even one Jew in Auschwitz or elsewhere" (p. 113). Surely, Graf will not deny that there is hardly a single SS man who denied that Jews were gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau and many other places. In other words: We cannot rely on any SS man. The only man we can rely on is Mr. Graf, who was not even there.

4.) Graf claims, imitating Faurisson (p. 150): If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed all the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gasses..." etc. etc. In sum: " These technical considerations refute all "eyewitness reports" on mass gassings with Zyklon B without exception" (ibid., p. 151. Really? One the other hand, Walter Dejaco from the Auschwitz Bauleitung, stated, in 1972, that any large room could be used for gassing human beings. "Even this hearing room". Dejaco was one of the Germans responsible for building the Leichenkeller, also called Vergasungskeller. Many Germans used their garage or barn for gassing in those days. So, whom do we want to believe - Graf or Dejaco?

5.) When we come to Babi Yar, Graf wants us to believe that this is "just another swindle" (p. 180).
On the other hand there are numerous German and even Jewish and Ukranian witnesses etc. So again we have to choose between Graf and all those who were there.

6.) One of the main sources for Babi Yar are the reports of the Einsatzgruppen, the Ereignismeldungen, recently published by the WBG. These reports are, according to Graf, "either totally falsified, or at least manipulated on a massive scale". (p. 181) This , again, is a mere statement of faith on the part of Graf.
Ohlendorf, in 1946, confirmed that such reports were prepared, and what they contained: "Die Meldungen über Hinrichtungen wurden regelmässig an das Reichssicherheitshauptamt erstattet". (The reports about the executions were normally passed on the (Heyrich´s) Reichssicherheitshauptamt (in Berlin). (op. cit., p. 374). Heydrich and Himmler were informed, of course. So gain: Who is to relied upon - Ohlendorf or Graf?

8.) Graf says that there were so many Jews to be killed, and so few members of the Einsatzgruppen to do so (p. 178). Sure, there were about 3000 men and women in the four Einsatzgruppen, and that would hardly have been sufficient. So why do you forget to mention that Ohlendorf already in 1946 made it clear that members of the Waffen-SS and the Ordnungspolizei assisted them in executing the Jews? (op. cit., p. 359)

9.) When it comes to Chelmno, Graf claims that the "whole extermination camp stands and falls with the existence or nonexistence of the gas vans" (p. 166). Again, it must recalled that none of the SS men who worked there denied to existence of gas vans. So, Chelmno stands.

10.) Like all other deniers, Graf denies that Hitler issued an order to murder the Jews. In other words, Ohlendorf must, according to Graf, have been a damned liar when he stated in January 1946: "Es war ja der Befehl, dass die jüdische Bevölkerung total ausgerottet werden sollte". (There was, of course, the order that the Jewish people had to be totally annihilated). (op. cit., p. 374) Also the Jewish children? Ohlendorf: "Jawohl". Himmler was of exactly the same opinion. So was Heydrich. But not so Graf.

So here we are: On the one side we have all the SS men who did not deny the murder of the Jews etc. On the opposite side we have Graf and, to some extent, perhaps, Goebbels. Graf got it all right, the Germans got it all wrong. Surely, even Goebbels would have been amused.

onsdag 25 januari 2012

She stated that Heydrich was probably not in Berlin on January 20th 1942 and even makes the bold claim that it is all a matter of "media repetition and indoctrination of school kids". The Nazis had no intention of killing the Jews.

Even the average school kid should be able to tell Carolyn Yaeger that she does not know what she is talking about.

SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich

There can be no doubt that the Conference actually took place in January 1942. Some of the participants, who were invited by Heydrich, were interrogated after the war - in 1947 - by Robert M. W. Kempner:

1. Dr. Stuckart admitted: "Yes, I did take part in such a meeting (Besprechung)".

2. Klopfer admitted that he was present, and that he was familiar with the expression "Endlösung der Judenfrage" from a letter from Heydrich to Bormann.

3. Dr. Leibbrandt admitted that he was present, and that the invitation came from Heydrich. Later, he reported to Rosenberg that he did not approve of the suggestions made at the meeting.

4. Kritzinger was also present, and confirmed that Heydrich had spoken about the deportation of the Jews. He even confirmed that he had heard about gas chambers for Jews.

5. Neumann was also there, but could no longer remember anything.

6. Martin Luther was not interrogated by Kempner, but we know from other sources that he, Luther, reported from the meeting. In his diary, March 7th 1942, Goebbels noted: " Ich lese eine ausführliche Denkschrift des SD und der Polizei über die Endlösung der Judenfrage".He mentions the 11.000.000 Jews in Europe, as does the Besprechungsprotokoll.

From these and many other independent pieces of evidence it is clear that the meeting did take place, and that Heydrich was present.

Other deniers do not deny that the Wannsee Conference actually took place. Some say that the purpose was to rescue the European Jews by deporting them to safety in the East. In the opinion of Dr. Robert Faurisson, the Jews would have to work. They would not be murdered. Those who survived would then "be people trained to hard work and they will be able to have kibbutz". Faurisson added: "Then, there will be a renaissance, a revival." (Did Six Million Really Die?, Toronto 1992, p. 344). - All this is, of course, plain nonsense and effrontery. Where is the evidence that Hitler, or Himmler, or Heydrich, when speaking of the extermination of the Jews, were seriously thinking of a "revival" or "renaissance" of the Jews!

And why did Himmler say:

"Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps)...

"Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)

? ? ?

Did Hitler and Heydrich forget to tell Himmler about the plan "to have kibbutz"?

There is really no excuse for the deep and disgraceful ignorance displayed by Carolyn Yaeger.

For more about Wannsee etc., see e.g. Mark Roseman, The Villa, the Lake, the Meeting: Wannsee and the Final Solution, London 2002. - Peter Longerich, Holocaust, Oxford 2010, pp. 305-310.- Robert M.W.Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen, Zürich/Stuttgart/Wien 1961, pp. 126-161.

"Congratulations Professor Robert Faurisson!… and you are still awaiting a response to your challenge: Show me or draw me the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz! "

Dr. Lindtner´s reply to Dr. Töben: Dr. Töben seems to have a short memory: I have - more than once - offered to show a drawing or even a photo of a Nazi gas chamber to Robert Faurisson and to the public. But first RF has to answer a few questions concerning the Holocaust. Time has shown that RF does not want to answer these rather simple questions. Nor has Dr. Töben or any other "denier" been able to answer any of these questions - to be found on the blog: